Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36686831›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Poor health literacy associated with stronger perceived barriers to breast cancer screening and overestimated breast cancer risk.

Paul K M Poon, King Wa Tam, Thomas Lam, Arthur K C Luk, Winnie C W Chu, Polly Cheung, Samuel Y S Wong, Joseph J Y Sung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paul K M PoonJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
King Wa TamJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Thomas LamJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Arthur K C LukJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Winnie C W ChuDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Polly CheungHong Kong Breast Cancer Foundation, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Samuel Y S WongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Joseph J Y SungLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Low health literacy (HL) is negatively associated with mammography screening uptake. However, evidence of the links between poor HL and low mammography screening participation is scarce. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey among participants of a cancer screening program. We measured HL using a validated Chinese instrument. We assessed breast cancer screening-related beliefs using the Health Belief Model and the accuracy of risk perception. We used multivariable regression models to estimate the relationship between HL and the outcomes. Results: A total of 821 females were included. 264 (32.2%) had excellent or sufficient, 353 (43.0%) had problematic, and 204 (24.8%) had inadequate health literacy (IHL). Women with IHL were more likely to agree that high price (β = -0.211, 95% CI -0.354 to -0.069), lack of time (β = -0.219, 95% CI -0.351 to -0.088), inconvenient service time (β = -0.291, 95% CI -0.421 to -0.160), long waiting time (β = -0.305, 95% CI -0.447 to -0.164), fear of positive results (β = -0.200, 95% CI -0.342 to -0.058), embarrassment (β = -0.225, 95% CI -0.364 to -0.086), fear of pain (β = -0.154, 95% CI -0.298 to -0.010), fear of radiation (β = -0.177, 95% CI -0.298 to -0.056), lack of knowledge on service location (β = -0.475, 95% CI -0.615 to -0.335), and lack of knowledge on mammography (β = -0.360, 95% CI -0.492 to -0.228) were barriers. They were also less likely to have an accurate breast cancer risk perception (aOR 0.572, 95% CI 0.341 to 0.956). Conclusion: Women with lower HL could have stronger perceived barriers to BC screening and an over-estimation of their breast cancer risk. Tackling emotional and knowledge barriers, financial and logistical assistance, and guidance on risk perception are needed to increase their breast cancer screening uptake.

Indexed as

barriercancer screening (MeSH)health literacyoverestimaterisk perception

Identifiers

PMID36686831
PMCPMC9850080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.